My point is, he lost his cool and that is ammunition that can easily be used against the movement as I so delicately demonstrated. I understand why he lost his cool.... he does not know how to lead nor does he understand the issue, when presented with a little pressure..Everyone know Naui is a joke..

There are allot of examples on the internet of people losing there cool or being out witted by people like Naui. You don't like Naui because he makes the movement look bad. When he does so, he wins.

Public perception is what matters if you want to win this war. The problem with most street protest are they are ineffective because they are not being used tactically. When you invite counter protests all eyes are on you...don't become media fodder or a recruitment tool for the opposition. When people get too emotional and fail to use the grey matter between your ears, they lose...The opposition knows this and will always use it to their advantage. Instead of calling Naui names, barking out pyscho orders, he should have taken the time to calmly explain the protest, the purpose, and its goals. Discuss fiscal problem and how it affects every tax payer..

This Shwick idiot gave Naui, the bullets, and the gun. He might as well have thrown up a surrender flag and left...but he obviously is to ignorant to understand that he lost.

Ahhh.....yes and no.

In a perfect world we'd like everyone on our side to be calm, cool, articulate, intelligent, reserved and probably even a little forgiving. But we live in the real world, and we have schwilk. It is my personal opinion that we are not going to sway the government on this immigration scheme by gentle persuasion, pleading, or even elections. They not going to move in our favor until they are faced with interruption of their daily routines, powerful backlash during 50% of their meetings, and revolt at the tax office. I don't know how old you are, but if I may summon up the memory of the 60's and 70's Vietnam war protests. They were happening on street corners, at concerts, state houses, and SCHOOLS for christs sakes. Even all that was slow to spur the change, but it was compelling. Calmly reasoning with a little chuckee-esque troll like Naui as he buzzes your head threateningly is not going to impress the government. They'd look at a video of that and say, "look! They're starting to get along!"
in contrast, I say we need groups of bold citizens standing on those streetcorners and day labor centers who are fed up and not going to take sh!t from foreign invaders or corrupt government actors. So no; I'm not going to tell the schwilks to stay home. He's still on his feet at least, while the calm, supposedly intellectual Joe Turner is where? MIA...

In a perfect world we'd like everyone on our side to be calm, cool, articulate, intelligent, reserved and probably even a little forgiving. But we live in the real world, and we have schwilk. It is my personal opinion that we are not going to sway the government on this immigration scheme by gentle persuasion, pleading, or even elections. They not going to move in our favor until they are faced with interruption of their daily routines, powerful backlash during 50% of their meetings, and revolt at the tax office. I don't know how old you are, but if I may summon up the memory of the 60's and 70's Vietnam war protests. They were happening on street corners, at concerts, state houses, and SCHOOLS for christs sakes. Even all that was slow to spur the change, but it was compelling. Calmly reasoning with a little chuckee-esque troll like Naui as he buzzes your head threateningly is not going to impress the government. They'd look at a video of that and say, "look! They're starting to get along!"
in contrast, I say we need groups of bold citizens standing on those streetcorners and day labor centers who are fed up and not going to take sh!t from foreign invaders or corrupt government actors. So no; I'm not going to tell the schwilks to stay home. He's still on his feet at least, while the calm, supposedly intellectual Joe Turner is where? MIA...

Davi, Vietnam was different and I was around (albeit young) during that period. Vietnam affected everyone at the time on a personal level. The unloading of body bags from aircraft was on every major news network. The draft was in affect. People knew people that were killed or wounded. POW's were making news stories as well. It was the media that influenced public opinion to a point where young college kids felt the need to do something thus the peace movement and the protests were born. This is not the case with illegal immigration.

Quote:

In a perfect world we'd like everyone on our side to be calm, cool, articulate, intelligent, reserved and probably even a little forgiving.

I agree this is not a perfect world but regardless of imperfections, a leader has to stay calm, intelligent, and reserved. That is leadership 101. A leader cannot panic under fire or things will quickly become unraveled.

Naui tactics are so incredibly obvious, only a fool would fall for them.

Davi, you lead by example. If a leader loses there composure or demonstrate incompetence under pressure, how do you expect your followers to act? Piss poor leadership and wrong decision making gets people hurt. Does the leadership of this movement want martyr's?

Every individual, including leadership, should be well versed and have talking points at these rallies and those talking points should be rehearsed. If you stay on message, you will be affective...but this takes real leadership something this movement is sorely missing. I for one will not follow a fool.

OK, I see the problem that's causing our differences. I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader per se. I'm glad he stands up for our causes, but that doesn't mean I think he sets the standard(s) for our movement.

I don't wish to debate the comparison between the Vietnam war and immigration, as it isn't the real subject anyway

OK, I see the problem that's causing our differences. I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader per se. I'm glad he stands up for our causes, but that doesn't mean I think he sets the standard(s) for our movement.

I don't wish to debate the comparison between the Vietnam war and immigration, as it isn't the real subject anyway

Quote:

I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader

Nor should anyone.

There is a genome missing in the followers of this movement. The genome missing is the inability of the followers to question or challenge the people who are self appointed leaders....The fear of being labeled this or that or.....be kicked out of the movement entirely is so great that it has muted common sense....

The followers are so blind to this it is beyond funny as the self appointed leaders have to use divide and conquer tactics to stay in a leadership roles. It should be the responsibility of everyone in this movement, if they truly care about it, to question the leadership. This is not a military operations all though the way these idiots act, they think it is.

This is a political / public relations / awareness campaign and until that is understood, the movement will lose. That leads me to my next questions / thoughts...

Gilcrest wants to put 200 former Marines on the border? You have to ask...for what purpose? If...you plan on doing border operations (observe and report), wouldn't it be much wiser from a political / public relations standpoint to put retired people and other volunteers on the border? I have to ask, why former Marines?

I don't see the political or public relations benefit of this tactic. Marines, former or otherwise (and I am a former Marine), make terrible observe and report personal. Unless Gilcrest is expecting a fire fight, anyone should be able to volunteer for his next project. A decent hunter / outdoors man can easily move into remote areas to observe and report.

There is a genome missing in the followers of this movement. The genome missing is the inability of the followers to question or challenge the people who are self appointed leaders....The fear of being labeled this or that or.....be kicked out of the movement entirely is so great that it has muted common sense....

The followers are so blind to this it is beyond funny as the self appointed leaders have to use divide and conquer tactics to stay in a leadership roles. It should be the responsibility of everyone in this movement, if they truly care about it, to question the leadership. This is not a military operations all though the way these idiots act, they think it is.

This is a political / public relations / awareness campaign and until that is understood, the movement will lose. That leads me to my next questions / thoughts...

Gilcrest wants to put 200 former Marines on the border? You have to ask...for what purpose? If...you plan on doing border operations (observe and report), wouldn't it be much wiser from a political / public relations standpoint to put retired people and other volunteers on the border? I have to ask, why former Marines?

I don't see the political or public relations benefit of this tactic. Marines, former or otherwise (and I am a former Marine), make terrible observe and report personal. Unless Gilcrest is expecting a fire fight, anyone should be able to volunteer for his next project. A decent hunter / outdoors man can easily move into remote areas to observe and report.

Well, if you please; I'd rather the Gilchrist question be brought up in the radio show thread, or starting one up in a different section of the forum.

And I share most of your views on the leadership issue. But that's why those of us who are still here, are still here.

Perhaps the anti-illegal immigration movement has confused itself with the border patrol movement. They are not the same thing. Where we have seen private citizens going out to our borders, there are entirely different issues involved. Sometimes there are property issues and somebody has to be in charge of volunteers who show up for these kind of things. They are not anything like showing up for demonstrations. Different kinds of leadership are required.

A similar kind of distinction has to be made between activists in border cities and the rest of us who are only confronting illegal settlements on the interior.

Just making the distinctions between different kinds of activists might do a lot to remove a lot of abrasion between them.

For example I am a very strict illegal immigrants issue oriented voter. The way that a candidate stands on the issue of illegal immigration determines whether they get my vote or not. I do not care to fool around with other issues on the premise they are at the root of illegal immigration. As far as I am concerned the issue starts and ends with illegal immigration and the fact that illegal immigration is an immigration issue is as broad as I care to take it. I might go as far as being concerned with national security and illegal immigration is an international issue, obviously. This is where SOS attracts my attention and for no other reason.

__________________

The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"!